Abstract

Aim/Background

The international antiemetic guidelines are available. However, evidence for antiemetic therapy in MEC is lacking. It is still not clear what regimens provide poor control of CINV. In the present study, we clarified regimens that poorly control CINV due to MEC and the risk factors.

Results

Between May 2013 and January 2015, a total of 400 pts were registered in the study, and 386 pts were eligible for evaluation. The proportion of pts who achieved a complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue), during the overall phase (0–168 h) were as follows: CBDCA + ETP-77%, CBDCA + PTX-67%, CBDCA + PEM-54% for lung cancer, TC-70% for breast cancer, FOLFOX-63%, XELOX-64% for colon cancer, and TC-51% for ovarian cancer. The proportion of pts who achieved total control (TC; no emesis, no rescue and nausea) during the overall phase were as follows: CBDCA + ETP-71%, CBDCA + PTX-57%, CBDCA + PEM-33% for lung cancer, TC-48% for breast cancer, FOLFOX-53%, XELOX-54% for colon cancer, and TC-36% for ovarian cancer. CR rates were clinically significantly lower in females (56%) compared with males (70%).

Conclusions

CBDCA + PEM for lung cancer and TC for ovarian cancer resulted in poorly controlled CINV. We also clarified a low emetic control rate in females. Overall, the two antiemetic therapy with poorly controlled CINV and females should be considered for triplet antiemetic regimen including an NK1 receptor antagonist.